Re: Obama II
Actually, bugs/design flaws caught during the design phase cost far less than those discovered during the build. Doug GSV Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Obama II
However, the best bugs are introduced during programming, but much earlier. Catching bugs at the earliest possible time is expensive, but the ROI is immense and outweighs the cost by several orders of magnitude. Of course, any manager who was reading this dropped out at the word expensive, so defective software will remain the standard. You know that, in over 30 years of programming, I never really had those types of bugs that become features in software. But, I'm very unusual, I program as a means of thinking out the physics of the problem I'm trying to solve. In other words, I write software, where the previous generation, or even physicists 5 years ahead of me, would work things on on paper. I recall, back in '81, patientily listening to a post doc explaining how to do the error anaysis of my data. I patiently listened to him, he knew more than I did on most things and had earned my respect, until there was a pause. I then asked him, but isn't this just an approximation, wouldn't running a Monte Carlo to get the error be more accurate. He said yes, but do you have any idea how much it would cost to do a Monte Carlo error analysis? I said yes, $0.27. I did it this morning. He looked at me, and said grad. students have it too easy these days, and I left his office The moral of the story is that if you think carfully about what questions you ask early, and your job title allows you to do that (as someone who is expected to come up with inventions that solve problems, you get some leeway...especially if you have a PhD in physicsit may not be fair that we get more leeway, but it's my experience), then you can have software that actually basically works the first time it is tried with a real tool. I've twice had the experience of well we'll try this, but we'll have to get back to you when it fails and me saying but, I've tested it pretty extensively on data in post processing mode, if the same data is in the tool, I'll have failure modes with unusual data, but it should generally work and having it work first time in the tool. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Obama II
Bryon Daly wrote: Further, as a Mormon, Romney doesn't quite pass the WASP test so he basically had to tack hard right to build up his conservative cred to get the party nomination. Ugh. Mormons have taken control of the Internet (by Facebook). I'm glad they didn't take control of the USA too. Alberto Monteiro the paranoid ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Obama II
I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they would require that all programming for applications they used would have to be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that automatically eliminated bugs. AFAIK, the Ada compiler can detect many programmer mistakes at compile time. Of course, one might say that Ada that's mainly because Ada imposes so many restrictions on the programmer that the chance to make mistakes is greatly increased (compared to more relaxed languages, which do, for example, implicit type conversion). Ada also supports run-time-checks - which detects bugs when it's already too late (or may even cause bugs in extreme cases). Compared to other languages of the time, like Fortran, it's clearly superior in detecting some classes of bugs early. It also reduces the programmer's efficiency, resulting the number of bugs per time compare to more efficient languages. However, the best bugs are introduced during programming, but much earlier. Catching bugs at the earliest possible time is expensive, but the ROI is immense and outweighs the cost by several orders of magnitude. Of course, any manager who was reading this dropped out at the word expensive, so defective software will remain the standard. Okay, the word standard reminds to get back on-topic. I suspect that the reason for the choice of Ada was that Ada was the first standardized HL programming language. Oh, the military loves standards. No further explanation necessary. Best regards, Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Obama II
This plays into some recent conversations about efficiency vs resilience. Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:06:16 +0100 From: k...@stock-consulting.com To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Obama II I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they would require that all programming for applications they used would have to be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that automatically eliminated bugs. AFAIK, the Ada compiler can detect many programmer mistakes at compile time. Of course, one might say that Ada that's mainly because Ada imposes so many restrictions on the programmer that the chance to make mistakes is greatly increased (compared to more relaxed languages, which do, for example, implicit type conversion). Ada also supports run-time-checks - which detects bugs when it's already too late (or may even cause bugs in extreme cases). Compared to other languages of the time, like Fortran, it's clearly superior in detecting some classes of bugs early. It also reduces the programmer's efficiency, resulting the number of bugs per time compare to more efficient languages. However, the best bugs are introduced during programming, but much earlier. Catching bugs at the earliest possible time is expensive, but the ROI is immense and outweighs the cost by several orders of magnitude. Of course, any manager who was reading this dropped out at the word expensive, so defective software will remain the standard. Okay, the word standard reminds to get back on-topic. I suspect that the reason for the choice of Ada was that Ada was the first standardized HL programming language. Oh, the military loves standards. No further explanation necessary. Best regards, Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Obama II
This plays into some recent conversations about efficiency vs resilience. Yup. And neither efficiency nor resilience will help you in the end if you don't ponder some important questions first. Like: do we measure altitude in feet or meters?, or should we check if the old guidance system will work okay in the new rocket? - Klaus Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:06:16 +0100 From: k...@stock-consulting.com To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Obama II I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they would require that all programming for applications they used would have to be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that automatically eliminated bugs. AFAIK, the Ada compiler can detect many programmer mistakes at compile time. Of course, one might say that Ada that's mainly because Ada imposes so many restrictions on the programmer that the chance to make mistakes is greatly increased (compared to more relaxed languages, which do, for example, implicit type conversion). Ada also supports run-time-checks - which detects bugs when it's already too late (or may even cause bugs in extreme cases). Compared to other languages of the time, like Fortran, it's clearly superior in detecting some classes of bugs early. It also reduces the programmer's efficiency, resulting the number of bugs per time compare to more efficient languages. However, the best bugs are introduced during programming, but much earlier. Catching bugs at the earliest possible time is expensive, but the ROI is immense and outweighs the cost by several orders of magnitude. Of course, any manager who was reading this dropped out at the word expensive, so defective software will remain the standard. Okay, the word standard reminds to get back on-topic. I suspect that the reason for the choice of Ada was that Ada was the first standardized HL programming language. Oh, the military loves standards. No further explanation necessary. Best regards, Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com -- Best regards, Klausmailto:k...@stock-consulting.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Obama II
On a related note, I've been reading about problems with the Romney campaign's software to organize election day get-out-the-vote efforts. My first reaction was Sabotage?, but now I'm betting that incompetence is the more likely explanation. See: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/romney/2012/11/10/orca-mitt-romney-high-tech-get-out-the-vote-program-crashed-election-day/gflS8VkzDcJcXCrHoV0nsI/story.html What do you think? ---David ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Obama II
Sounded like a classic scalability problem. I'm looking forward to our company telling our election software story. Had been super secret. Nick On Sunday, November 11, 2012, David Hobby wrote: On a related note, I've been reading about problems with the Romney campaign's software to organize election day get-out-the-vote efforts. My first reaction was Sabotage?, but now I'm betting that incompetence is the more likely explanation. See: http://www.boston.com/news/**politics/2012/president/** candidates/romney/2012/11/10/**orca-mitt-romney-high-tech-** get-out-the-vote-program-**crashed-election-day/** gflS8VkzDcJcXCrHoV0nsI/story.**htmlhttp://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/romney/2012/11/10/orca-mitt-romney-high-tech-get-out-the-vote-program-crashed-election-day/gflS8VkzDcJcXCrHoV0nsI/story.html What do you think? ---David __**_ http://box535.bluehost.com/**mailman/listinfo/brin-l_**mccmedia.comhttp://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Obama II
Nick wrote Sounded like a classic scalability problem. I would guess otherwise. This would be an interesting geekish debate to have. My guess is that its akin to the problem with Star Wars software, which was assumed to work first time untested. From what I read, their software did not lend itself to real live testing before election day. So, it glitched badly, as one would expect the first time in the field. My software work has often been with firmare that runs 20,000 feet below the surface, with no chance to fix anything once it goes downhole. Field testing in real wells is essential, even for software that has run perfectly without intervention in the lab. It's easy to field test and fix software that helps field operatives identify and talk with prospective voters before the election. If there's a major problem found in Cleveland in July, it can be fixed and the fix sent out nationwide in a few days. But, with the Republicans, if I understand correctly, their software was for election day onlycounting voters off a list and then providing lists of pro-Romney voters who haven't voted yet. If it glitches on election day, the best programmers in the world couldn't get the patch out in time. That's my guess, anyways. Does anyone else want to play detective. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Obama II
Star Wars had a critical difference. It didn't need to work because it was all a giant bluff. Romney had little or nothing to gain by bluffing. Back to the facts. The Romney team said the software was running 20-30 minutes behind. And pointed out that, as you suggest, there was no real way to test it in advance. But in that situation, you have to really over- design for scalability. Nick On Sunday, November 11, 2012, Dan Minette wrote: Nick wrote Sounded like a classic scalability problem. I would guess otherwise. This would be an interesting geekish debate to have. My guess is that its akin to the problem with Star Wars software, which was assumed to work first time untested. From what I read, their software did not lend itself to real live testing before election day. So, it glitched badly, as one would expect the first time in the field. My software work has often been with firmare that runs 20,000 feet below the surface, with no chance to fix anything once it goes downhole. Field testing in real wells is essential, even for software that has run perfectly without intervention in the lab. It's easy to field test and fix software that helps field operatives identify and talk with prospective voters before the election. If there's a major problem found in Cleveland in July, it can be fixed and the fix sent out nationwide in a few days. But, with the Republicans, if I understand correctly, their software was for election day onlycounting voters off a list and then providing lists of pro-Romney voters who haven't voted yet. If it glitches on election day, the best programmers in the world couldn't get the patch out in time. That's my guess, anyways. Does anyone else want to play detective. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Obama II
On Star Wars, it worked as a bluff, but I don't think Reagan was bluffing. I think he believed. I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they would require that all programming for applications they used would have to be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that automatically eliminated bugs. Anyone who wrote any software at Dresser Industries had to write a program in Ada, even scientists like me. But, that was back in the day when the head of computer departments for major corporations had no idea how computers worked. Back to the facts. The Romney team said the software was running 20-30 minutes behind. Well, I also read that parts of it simply failedreporting 0 votes from a long list on election day. The part that targeted voting lists to cull those who haven't voted for attention can be made modular. But in that situation, you have to really over- design for scalability. Or modular. Let the software run on 10,000 computers in every regional office, with just the sums sent to the main headquarters. Obama's software workedand I think its because it was field tested for monthsit was intended to track voters for months, not just on election day. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Obama II
On 11/11/2012 6:00 PM, Dan Minette wrote: ... Well, I also read that parts of it simply failedreporting 0 votes from a long list on election day. The part that targeted voting lists to cull those who haven't voted for attention can be made modular. I don't think it was just a software failure. The campaign also neglected to tell poll watchers that they needed a certificate, and the instructions for the software were poor. http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-project-orca-disaster-2012-11 ---David ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Obama II
I didn't realize how unclear it is whether Reagan and other top officials regarded it as a bluff or not, until I poked around a bit just now. Easy to see how they might have started off serious, then decided to re-write history and say it was all a bluff. I have some up-close and personal experience with the Reagan White House rewriting history - their version persists in most peoples' minds still; when I tell my version, most people are still surprised. Shows the power of the bully pulpit, sure was interesting to see it first-hand. Nick On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: On Star Wars, it worked as a bluff, but I don't think Reagan was bluffing. I think he believed. I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they would require that all programming for applications they used would have to be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that automatically eliminated bugs. Anyone who wrote any software at Dresser Industries had to write a program in Ada, even scientists like me. But, that was back in the day when the head of computer departments for major corporations had no idea how computers worked. Back to the facts. The Romney team said the software was running 20-30 minutes behind. Well, I also read that parts of it simply failedreporting 0 votes from a long list on election day. The part that targeted voting lists to cull those who haven't voted for attention can be made modular. But in that situation, you have to really over- design for scalability. Or modular. Let the software run on 10,000 computers in every regional office, with just the sums sent to the main headquarters. Obama's software workedand I think its because it was field tested for monthsit was intended to track voters for months, not just on election day. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Obama II
I recall Carl Sagan despairing that Reagan believed it. The amount of money and resources that went into live tests would suggest there was faith at the top, regardless of what those 'lower' in the chain of command might have thought. At the time SW was being promoted, it gave all the appearance of earnestness. • Warren • off console • w azkrmc.com • h nightwares.com • On Nov 11, 2012, at 20:52, Nick Arnett nick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't realize how unclear it is whether Reagan and other top officials regarded it as a bluff or not, until I poked around a bit just now. Easy to see how they might have started off serious, then decided to re-write history and say it was all a bluff. I have some up-close and personal experience with the Reagan White House rewriting history - their version persists in most peoples' minds still; when I tell my version, most people are still surprised. Shows the power of the bully pulpit, sure was interesting to see it first-hand. Nick On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: On Star Wars, it worked as a bluff, but I don't think Reagan was bluffing. I think he believed. I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they would require that all programming for applications they used would have to be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that automatically eliminated bugs. Anyone who wrote any software at Dresser Industries had to write a program in Ada, even scientists like me. But, that was back in the day when the head of computer departments for major corporations had no idea how computers worked. Back to the facts. The Romney team said the software was running 20-30 minutes behind. Well, I also read that parts of it simply failedreporting 0 votes from a long list on election day. The part that targeted voting lists to cull those who haven't voted for attention can be made modular. But in that situation, you have to really over- design for scalability. Or modular. Let the software run on 10,000 computers in every regional office, with just the sums sent to the main headquarters. Obama's software workedand I think its because it was field tested for monthsit was intended to track voters for months, not just on election day. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Obama II
I didn't realize how unclear it is whether Reagan and other top officials regarded it as a bluff or not, until I poked around a bit just now. Easy to see how they might have started off serious, then decided to re-write history and say it was all a bluff. I have some up-close and personal experience with the Reagan White House rewriting history - their version persists in most peoples' minds still; when I tell my version, most people are still surprised. Shows the power of the bully pulpit, sure was interesting to see it first-hand. If it was a bluff, it was a brilliant bluff. Getting the USSR to focus on Star Wars instead of invading Europe and hastening their collapse to minimize the time of risk was just what Truman thought of when we came up with containment instead of war. As it was, we were luckly. If the coup wasn't overturned, the USSR would have reformed and a last gasp attack on Europe might have happened. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Obama II
Here in Brazil, we had the impression that the Republicans chose the worst possible candidate, someone they put there to lose. Or maybe the Democrats voted in the Republican primaries to make him win. A big part of Romney's appeal was that as a tremendously successful businessman, he was afforded a large amount of economic credibility. And with almost 4 years now of the Great Recession under Obama's watch, the economy was the number one concern for many people and Obama was vulnerable on this issue. They then doubled-down on this by picking another economics-type guy as his running mate. And this was largely successful in that despite them providing very little in the way of hard numbers, they were often the winners of the who is better for the economy polls. Another part of Romney's appeal was that he had some moderate/centrist appeal as a moderate republican, having been elected governor of the largely democrat state of Masschusetts, and having passed the Romneycare health plan, which is often called the model for the Obamacare health plan. But those were both huge vulnerabilities for him in the primary process where some felt he wasn't conservative enough and Obamacare is a dirty word. Further, as a Mormon, Romney doesn't quite pass the WASP test so he basically had to tack hard right to build up his conservative cred to get the party nomination. The likely intention was to shift back to the center to hopefully get the moderates back on board once he had the nomination locked, but that never quite worked out. Romney never quite had the right's full trust, which likely wasn't helped when Romney's spokesman was asked back in March if Romney's shift to the far right would hurt him with moderates, and the spokesman replied: “Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch-A-Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all of over again.” -- Thus begging the question from both moderates and the far right of what Romney really believes and stands for. Is he a flip-flopper - or worse, is he just always willing to say whatever it takes to get elected? Did anyone over there ever think that Mitt Romney had _any_ chance? Many of the pundits and talking heads of the right actually seemed to expect a landslide victory for Romney. Quite a few projected electoral college results around the reverse of the actual result: around 300+ for Romney, and around 206 for Obama. Liberals had high levels of schadenfreude watching the distressed Fox News coverage. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/democratic-schadenfreude-gay-rights-allen-west-karl-rove-donald-trump.php And of course, a 2.5% difference in the number of popular votes for each candidate is quite a slim margin, particularly when the electoral college nonsense makes it possible for the loser of the popular vote to get elected. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Obama II
So... What about Obama's reelection? Here in Brazil, we had the impression that the Republicans chose the worst possible candidate, someone they put there to lose. Or maybe the Democrats voted in the Republican primaries to make him win. Did anyone over there ever think that Mitt Romney had _any_ chance? Alberto Monteiro PS: BTW, brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff, is _boring_. Three years as president, and there's not _any_ single joke about her. Nothing. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Obama II
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 3:17 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Obama II So... What about Obama's reelection? Here in Brazil, we had the impression that the Republicans chose the worst possible candidate, someone they put there to lose. Or maybe the Democrats voted in the Republican primaries to make him win. We have a primary system in the US. Right now, the extreme right wing of the Repubican party can force candidates far to the right. Good Republican candidates stayed on the sideline this year, leaving Romney and the 7 right wing dwarfs. Did anyone over there ever think that Mitt Romney had _any_ chance? I did, especially after the first debate. No American president has been re-elected with more than 7.2% unemployment since FDR, and he brought employment way down. This has been probably the most painful ecconomic period (in terms of changes) since WWII. That's a strong headwind. When Obama sleptwalked through the first debate, and Romney was ahead in the national polls, I thought it was a toss up. Especially after the UN speech which totally misidentified the cause of the deaths in Lybia after the administration had intelligence that pointed to terrorism, not a crowd gone wild. But, Romney blew the 2nd and 3rd debate, Obama...for the first time in the campaign, acted as though he wanted to be reelected, and Sandy cemented in the American mind the positive roll the Federal government can play. By election Eve, Gautam and I were arguing about the margin. He was spot on, I though Romney would take VA, CO, and FL. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Obama II
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 07:17:25 -0200, ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO albm...@centroin.com.br wrote: So... What about Obama's reelection? Here in Brazil, we had the impression that the Republicans chose the worst possible candidate, someone they put there to lose. Or maybe the Democrats voted in the Republican primaries to make him win. I've got a somewhat different take on it from Dan, I think. The extreme 'right' in the Republican party is a shrinking minority, however little they want to admit the fact, and however voluble their protests to the contrary might be. Rick Perry is an example of the kind of candidate they would have preferred. The Republican mainstream probably knew better; if they felt the same way as the extremists Perry would have floated a lot longer than he did. Of all the other candidates, Ron Paul seemed the most sensible, but he had two things going against him: 1. He had a history of permitting extremely racist sentiments to be promulgated under his imprimatur; and 2. He was far, far more intelligent than any of the other candidates and, indeed, a fair margin of the electorate. Americans shy away from intelligence. So no, Romney was the best pick of the available options, as far as the Republicans saw him, I think. He wasn't *too* smart, wasn't *too* radically 'right', wasn't *too* moderate/centrist. He also wasn't too consistent, as his constantly changing campaign evidenced (he was reversing himself a couple of times a month by the end). No one deliberately floats a candidate they think will lose - what would the profit be in that? And if the Democrats had been stealth voting to undermine the Republicans, they would've picked someone clearly batshit loony, like Perry. Did anyone over there ever think that Mitt Romney had _any_ chance? Well, all but about 225,000 voters, yes. That's how narrow the popular vote margin was, last time I checked, between Obama and Romney. Dan was right about the debate performance, as well. Romney came out swinging and clobbered Obama in the first debate. The second and third were solid comebacks, though the third debate - being about foreign policy - was not watched by many Americans. (Our foreign policy is 'kill em all and let god sort em out'.) Biden did pretty well against Ryan in the VP debates, as well, calling him out repeatedly whenever he went outside the bounds of what most of us call 'reality'. Obama did the same thing with the second debate, calling Romney out when he lied, letting himself talk himself into corners, and so on. Nonetheless, Romney's approval went way, way up after the first debate, and it really did seem to energize him and his supporters. The electoral map doesn't show just how close the popular vote really was - and it was close. -- Warren Adams-Ockrassa ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Obama II
In terms of the popular vote, as of now Obama has 61,174,297 votes, while Romney has 58,172,063 votes A difference of 3,002,234, so a fair margin and decisively winning the popular vote for Obama. The difference is going to be slighly above 2.5% and slightly above the Bush margin over Kerry, but nowhere near the margin he had in '08. I've got a somewhat different take on it from Dan, I think. The extreme 'right' in the Republican party is a shrinking minority, however little they want to admit the fact, and however voluble their protests to the contrary might be. Rick Perry is an example of the kind of candidate they would have preferred. He is a weak example, though. He couldn't remember his talking points. And, if you recall, Romney went to the right of him on immigration. The GOP is interesting. I live in a very red state, and Perry better reflects the average GOP voter than Romney. But, he had baggage that would have doomed him in the general election, like appproving people who wanted Texas to seceed from the USA while governor. So, the GOP establishment, which still controls a lot of money, undercut him. And his not being able to remember his own name (OK I'm exaggerating) in a debate didn't help him. I think the GOP establishment is fading, and Ryan is the likely '16 candidate. Remember, this is the party that took down Lugar so they could run a yahoo. They may control the Senate if they let moderate Republicans run. Nate Silver did a great piece on how the moderate GOP senators have mostly left. And the House is dominated by the tea party. One of the problems the Speaker of the House has is that he many not be able to deliver even a third of the party for a compromise on spending cuts/tax increases to decrease the deficit. Remember, the presidential candidates had to agree that even $1 in tax increase for every $10 in spending cuts was unacceptable. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Obama II
So... What about Obama's reelection? Here in Brazil, we had the impression that the Republicans chose the worst possible candidate, put there to lose. Or maybe the Democrats voted in the Republican primaries to make him win. Did anyone over there ever think that Mitt Romney had _any_ chance? Alberto Monteiro PS: BTW, Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff, is _boring_. Three years as president, and not _any_ single joke about her. Nothing. Another explanation is perhaps when there is a incumbent up for the final term allowed under the law, more qualified candidates may choose to sit it out and let unknowns and also rans get egg on their face? Of course, in recent years that logic hasn't applied, but, Obama wasn't perceived as that weak, as Carter or Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. didn't really win... Capitalism Sucks is a book about the evils of capitalism. The author, Wolf Larsen, has a blog titled: War Criminal Obama Wins Reelection to the White House. http://capitalismsucks.blog.com Larsen ran for president in the 2012 elections as an independent. His campaign slogan was ~ Choosing between the Democrats and Republicans is like choosing between AIDS and cancer! http://WolfLarsen.org By the way if anyone is interested in how I did in the Santa Monica city council race please friend me on my Facebook page. While you're at it you might want to join in on the discussions on Brin's wall!~) Jon Mann ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
